Something fishy is happening with AY's SSRN posting of the paper. Yesterday (02/12/18) the downloads numbered in the hundreds. This morning (02/13/18), the number is 7. Does anyone know the SSRN's policy for download counts? It doesn't reset daily?

Something fishy is happening with AY's SSRN posting of the paper. Yesterday (02/12/18) the downloads numbered in the hundreds. This morning (02/13/18), the number is 7. Does anyone know the SSRN's policy for download counts? It doesn't reset daily?

Something fishy is happening with AY's SSRN posting of the paper. Yesterday (02/12/18) the downloads numbered in the hundreds. This morning (02/13/18), the number is 7. Does anyone know the SSRN's policy for download counts? It doesn't reset daily?

that's an ssrn issue affecting a large fraction of papers

Or is it SK, AK, CL, and Batman using their power to get rid of AY's paper...!?

Something fishy is happening with AY's SSRN posting of the paper. Yesterday (02/12/18) the downloads numbered in the hundreds. This morning (02/13/18), the number is 7. Does anyone know the SSRN's policy for download counts? It doesn't reset daily?

that's an ssrn issue affecting a large fraction of papers

Or is it SK, AK, CL, and Batman using their power to get rid of AY's paper...!?

Based on the 05/03/17 date, I'm assuming the SSRN paper was sent to The Accounting Review editors last year. Compared to the EJW paper, the SSRN one is very straight to the point, no beating around the bush. Sad how hard it is for misconduct to be reported and taken seriously.

There's an eerily similar story in political science from 2 years ago. Two big-shots received repeated emails from one random PhD student telling them their data had a fundamental coding mistake. Ignored him and tried to censor him.

A difference I see is that the big-shot liars (Hatemi and Verhulst) immediately contacted the journals they had published in and requested "corrections" as soon as they found out that the random PhD student (SL) had submitted a paper to what seems to be a top psychology journal, JPSP.

That's less than two months. So the big-shot liars beat SL to the punch and were able to frame the discussion as "we made a mistake, we fixed it."

In this case, Karolyi behaved almost identically in his email responses, but he was just too arrogant and thought he was untouchable. I reread the timeline in AY's comment, and the EJW editor emailed Karolyi in November. Had Karolyi contacted TAR at that time, who knows, TAR might have issued a "correction" in December, January at the latest.

So Karolyi wasn't able to frame the discussion as "we made a mistake, we fixed it." He was caught lying, and he could only weakly and pathetically blame the copyediting process.

A difference I see is that the big-shot liars (Hatemi and Verhulst) immediately contacted the journals they had published in and requested "corrections" as soon as they found out that the random PhD student (SL) had submitted a paper to what seems to be a top psychology journal, JPSP.
SL submission to JPSP (June 16, 2015)http://images.nymag.com/images/2/daily/2016/06/PID-S-15-00236.pdf
Hatemi "correction" at American Journal of Political Science (6 August 2015)http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajps.12216/full
That's less than two months. So the big-shot liars beat SL to the punch and were able to frame the discussion as "we made a mistake, we fixed it."
In this case, Karolyi behaved almost identically in his email responses, but he was just too arrogant and thought he was untouchable. I reread the timeline in AY's comment, and the EJW editor emailed Karolyi in November. Had Karolyi contacted TAR at that time, who knows, TAR might have issued a "correction" in December, January at the latest.
So Karolyi wasn't able to frame the discussion as "we made a mistake, we fixed it." He was caught lying, and he could only weakly and pathetically blame the copyediting process.

Econ aspies are relatively late to react, not surprising. In both cases they hid their error for 2+ years and tried to censor the 1-2 people who noticed. Bulk of the story is exactly the same.